Blaming a Marin County judge for "a miscarriage of justice," a state appeals court reversed a pregnancy discrimination verdict against Lucasfilm Ltd. and vacated $1.2 million in attorney's fees stemming from a 2010 jury trial in Marin Superior Court.

The three-judge appellate panel, in a 37-page decision published Monday, said the trial judge, Lynn O'Malley Taylor, made so many errors in jury instructions that it "prejudicially affected the verdict." The appeals panel sent the case back to Marin for retrial.

The discrimination lawsuit was filed by Julie Gilman Veronese, who lost a job at the San Anselmo estate of "Star Wars" filmmaker George Lucas in 2008. Veronese claimed the job was revoked after she informed the company she was pregnant.

The appellate ruling was filed in the First District Court of Appeal in San Francisco. The decision was written by Justice James Richman and joined by Justices Paul Haerle and James Lambden.

Veronese's trial lawyer and mother-in-law, Angela Alioto, said the appellate decision was a "boggling" interpretation by three male judges. She said she is "tempted" to take the case to the state Supreme Court but has not decided.

"It's so upsetting that three men in a position of power could think this way in 2012," said Alioto, a prominent discrimination lawyer and former San Francisco supervisor. "No pregnant woman is safe in the workplace with this attitude, the attitude of these three men."

Lucasfilm, in a statement released Monday afternoon, said it was "very happy that the Court of Appeals has tossed out the discrimination verdict."

"The allegations in this case were without merit," the company said. "Lucasfilm is committed to equal employment opportunity and has a long track record of providing a supportive work environment free of discrimination in which all employees are treated fairly. In particular, we have always championed working mothers and have exemplary programs in place to help employees start families. We applaud the Court's ruling as a vindication of our excellent track record in this area."

Veronese has 15 days to ask the three judges to reconsider, or 40 days to petition the state Supreme Court to review the case, said her appellate lawyer, Michael Rubin of Altshuler Berzon LLP in San Francisco.

One difference between the first trial and a second trial would be that Lucasfilm is now owned by the Walt Disney Co., which bought Lucasfilm for $4 billion in a deal announced in October. It was unclear whether the ownership change will increase the odds of a pretrial settlement.

The litigation began after Veronese, then 36, lost a job as an assistant to Sarita Patel, the longtime manager of George Lucas' residential compound in San Anselmo. Veronese, who never actually started the job, claimed the job was yanked after she told Patel she was pregnant.

Lucasfilm attorneys denied the allegations, suggesting Veronese concealed her pregnancy from Lucasfilm until she was hired because she wanted to exploit the company benefits. They also described her as a "narcissistic" socialite with a flimsy work history and an "entitled" attitude.

After a three-week trial that included testimony by George Lucas himself, a Marin jury ruled that Lucasfilm committed pregnancy discrimination, failure to prevent pregnancy discrimination and wrongful termination. The jury rejected two of Veronese's claims, retaliation and failure to accommodate a disability.

Lucasfilm did not pay the damages or the legal fees while the appeal was pending.

In the appeal, Lucasfilm argued that Taylor made six major errors in the jury instructions: two in which she improperly approved instructions proposed by Veronese; two where she improperly refused to give instructions proposed by Lucasfilm; and the "complete failure" to give the jurors instructions on two of the alleged Lucasfilm violations they were to consider.

The appeals panel largely agreed with Lucasfilm, saying there were enough instructional errors that the jury was unfairly prejudiced against the defendants.

The panel also said "there was much evidence of genuine concern for family and pregnant women, by both Lucasfilm in general and Patel in particular."

Taylor, whose style was folksy and nearly informal during the trial, had officially retired from full-time service in 2004, but she continued to hear some cases. If there is a new trial in the Lucasfilm case, it is uncertain whether she will hear it.

"Judge Taylor was wonderful judge," Alioto said Monday. "She was one of the fairest judges I've ever, ever had, and she knew her stuff."

Sarita Patel is still the manager of Lucas' estate, Lucasfilm spokeswoman Lynne Hale said Monday.